Author
Topic: Do you use lens correction profiles when processing raw files or not with LR4 (Read 7474 times)

Lightroom 4. I have been using raws all the time now and I finally checked the lens correction button and I noticed my images getting brighter and stretched (undistorted?) I mainly shoot in clubs and some portraits. I honestly didn't noticed the pincushion effect but now that I know about it I am wondering if my images might be better in the long run if I correct them. I use a 24-70. I get slight pincushion on the long end. SOmeone help me thanks....

As "privatebydesign" mentioned, it's a style choice. Obviously any transformation like distortion removal has the potential to soften detail to some extent as new pixels are being interpreted to allow for the correction. The great thing with LR is that it's non destructive to your original so that if you decide in the future you need a version where ultimate sharpness is more important than distortion correction, you can undo it or create a new virtual copy without it.

Of note are the sliders at the bottom of the "Lens Corrections" pane where you can adjust the "Amount" to which the profile corrections are applied, so you can even find your own middle ground if you want.

I always use it, though I sometimes partially (or completely) undo the vignette "correction" (I never undo the distortion corrections); of course, sometimes the corrections make almost no visible difference.

.I use it most of the time. Once you know exactly what is affected by the "correction" in each lens, you can make a decision picture by picture. Many people I know will make it part of an auto preference, probably smarter so you can undo it for a particular picture.

There are times when I've had to just go manual and use the lens corrections manually instead of the profile -- usually with really wide architectural stuff where lines are badly bowed.

For me it depends on the images. For all my real estate work I use it, it is a no brainer and as you say, once you see corrected files all else can seem way off.

+1

I didn't start using it until processing RE work, and it made me regret not doing it sooner; the difference is night and day. I set up LR4 to auto-correct on import, but found that I didn't necessarily like it on less structured type of photography so I removed it and just batch correct when I import from an RE shoot.

Of course depends on the image...but more often than not I prefer not to correct at a global "lens profile" level. I find it to be a bit too much.

As I mostly shoot lower focal lengths - rarely straying over 135mm - I like a bit of the barrel distortion left behind when using these lenses. It gives the pictures a very mild 3D effect, I realize this may not be a preference for others...thats why we are all individuals.

I also like for the vignetting not to be completely removed...but this is more of a shot-by-shot decision. Sometimes I even add a bit more vignetting for effect. Broadly speaking, the default profile corrections are a tad too aggressive for my personal tastes.

If I shot brick walls head on, I would. If I shot a lot of portraits where barrel distortion would create an unflattering look, I probably would. If I was using a lens with bad CA that showed up clearly in my photographs, I would.

For the most part, I don't find distortion or CA is ever a problem in my work, so I don't ever correct it. One way or another, lens correction diminishes detail, and maximizing detail is the most important thing for me. I'm happy to deal with invisible distortions and microscopic CA halos at the fringes of a landscape photo. Even though it may not be technically correct according to how the real world looked, you don't actually notice the difference until you toggle the correction on and off. In my bird and wildlife stuff, I've never noticed either to really be a problem except in a very few cases with CA.

As for vignetting, I actually like that as an artistic factor a lot of the time. I've never corrected it even once, but then again, I never really see it as I use APS-C. I guess if I picked up FF and experienced it more, I might correct it at times...depends on whether it has artistic appeal.

I use it every time I remember too! I don't change lenses to often when I am out and about so its pretty much a click to correct then syncing across all the images, takes seconds and worth it in my opinion.

I work mostly with people and use a range of lenses from 24mm on up to 200mm and I can say from firsthand experience that no amount of lens profile correction is going to deliver normalcy to faces if the photographer takes a shot too close with, say, a common lens like the 35L.

The first firewall is to take the shot keeping in mind the distortion, and to a lesser degree, the vignetting aspects of the lens you are using. Staying with the 35mm...unless you are going for a more distorted look for artistic reasons, to accentuate scale, or bring attention to an odd earring, step back a little for a more normal perspective.

If you don't want too much of the background, then avoid using the 35mm: getting closer is not the most practical answer to this problem. If you absolutely must use the 35mm, then step back to get a wider, less distorted shot and crop later...cropping is not a sin. If you can, use a 50mm or a 85mm... in other words use the right lens and take the shot at the appropriate distance depending on what you are going for.

Lens profile is not a panacea and will never produce an accurate looking face from a distorted original.

Don't get sidetracked, perspective is nothing to do with lens distortion.

Perspective is where you take the image from, it has nothing to do with focal length.

Lens distortion is referring to anomalies in the image projection (barrel, pincushion, mustache and complex), CA in several forms, and vignetting where the image gets dimmer the further from the center.

The lens distortion panel only takes care of the inherent qualities/anomalies/imperfections of each specific lens, it does not alter the perspective.

I would dispute the notion that perspective has nothing to do with focal length. I know a number of wedding, event, and portrait photographers, most of whom are professionals. Every single one of them frequently describes the "perspective" a lens like 70-200 offers, particularly at 200mm, that a 50 or 35 does not. That is thanks to background compression, which is a benefit of using lenses longer than 50mm. Technically speaking, all lenses of any focal length offer a certain perspective. A 50mm on FF gives you a "normal" perspective, akin to what the human eye offers. Longer lenses than the "normal" for a given form factor give you a compressed perspective. Shorter lenses than the "normal" give you an expanded perspective.

Perspective is NOT just about the relative positions of subjects thanks to the position of the photographer relative to the subject. It also has to do with how the lens affects the angle of view FOR those positions.

Don't get sidetracked, perspective is nothing to do with lens distortion.

Perspective is where you take the image from, it has nothing to do with focal length.

No...if you get too close with 35L calling that perspective is not accurate... It is not foreshortening in the traditional sense...there is actual bending of lines, minimal as it is....that is distortion to me...but I take your point.

The "inherent" distortion from optimal distances is not that bad with 35L at ~1.5%...85L II at ~1% and 135L only ~0.5%.